Should Interpol have held a press conference to announce the red notice?

As for him having allegations to face, he doesn't. I'll repeat, he hasn't been charged with anything. Any allegations are coming from the women and not the law. Presumably you have the right to remain silent in Sweden, so he's being held on house arrest in the UK waiting to be extradited to answer questions which he won't have to answer if he chooses not to. What's Sweden's motivation for this, really? If he does answer questions, it will be with his lawyer present and will be along the lines of "The sex was consensual," "She agreed to use a condom," etc.

Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:23 pm

See Arrrgh

Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England

But he does have allegations to face. Not just the accusations of the women, but from Swedish authorities. According to reports, they issued an arrest warrant for him, then requested that InterPol issue a red notice that would put European and other international countries on alert for a globe-trotting superstar that didn't shy away from cameras. I would assume the press conference was held because Julian Assange has become a bit of a celebrity around the world, making him someone of more interest than your average criminal. And having the right to remain silent means absolutely nothing when the fact remains that he's wanted in Sweden to face serious allegations (by authorities and the alleged victims) in regards to "rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion." Having the right to remain silent doesn't excuse you from having to face the authorities, nor does it excuse the fact that he left the country and failed to return for questioning. This, essentially, is fleeing the country. This is not protected, at least not in my book, under the right to remain silent. I don't understand why so many people are willing to give him a free pass on serious allegations when there's no proof provided (outside of his own word) to show whether he is or isn't innocent of these crimes. Until something comes to light, I don't think we should casually dismiss these allegations just because he's our new anti-Imperialist superstar.

What's so surprising to me is that Assange would be so careless. He knew he was in a precarious position given the nature of wikileaks, so why would he deliberately place himself into a situation where such accusations could arise? Either he didn't do what he's accused of doing, or he was blinded by his balls. Things don't look good either way.

Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:35 pm

Szechwan

Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 587
Location: Vancouver Island

This would be far from the first time someone in a prominent position was blinded by their balls. That's the only part of this that makes me think it isn't a smear campaign.. The fact that people always fuck up.

Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:20 pm

Sage FrancisSelf Fighteous

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21737

I've been sitting quietly on this issue for a couple weeks now. I just can't wrap my head around how effective this smear campaign (even if its based on truth) has derailed the narrative.

Even *if* he was blinded by his balls, I'm having a difficult time understanding what that has to do with the price of rice in China.

Spreading hearsay on the internet is what they call a whisper campaign.

Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:06 pm

Z-0

Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Sydney

i recommend John Pilgers new film "The War You Don't See". it doesnt present anything wildly new, but it is a focused critique on the relationships between governments and media networks, the responsibility of journalism to people; not power. and wikileaks is featured heavily in its latter stages.

Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:47 pm

OM3N

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 1297
Location: Thailand

I just moved into a new apartment that (for better or worse) has faux news. I just saw some talking heads talking about how "some incriminating documents, re: the rape were released on HIS OWN WEBSITE!"

Imagine that!

Then they show a clip of some ridiculous reporter confronting Assange on the sex charges. Assange is just like "Oh come on." and walks away.

Aside from that retardedness. Do you guys know about his "insurance policy"?

apparently some huge secrets protected by a 256 character password, that should something happen to him, will be released. That right there is interesting.

Spreading hearsay on the internet is what they call a whisper campaign.

i'm glad you dropped by to regurgitate the same tired line you've been accusing me of since 2005.

i don't really care that our mainstream media is out to smear assange. i also don't care that a lot of prominent figures on the left are out to smear his accusers. i think the "assange is a rapist" back story is fascinating and worth discussing.

of course, it in no way discredits the work done by wikileaks or the importance of the information revealed.

i guess i should have posted the recent revelations in the assage arrest thread but i didn't see it on the front page so i figured i'd post here.

Last edited by crash on Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:26 am

medicinemanHALFLING

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 1393
Location: Iowa City

crash wrote:

of course, it in no way discredits the work done by wikileaks or the importance of the information revealed.

Well, but it DOES, though.
Even if it shouldn't.
That's the point that people are trying to make.

dis·cred·it (ds-krdt)
tr.v. dis·cred·it·ed, dis·cred·it·ing, dis·cred·its
1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.
2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.
3. To refuse to believe.
n.
1. Loss of or damage to one's reputation.
2. Lack or loss of trust or belief; doubt.
3. Something damaging to one's reputation or stature.

Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:18 pm

crash

Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5457
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption

sorry, i was assuming the people who read this forum were smart enough to to make the distinction between apparent creepiness of assange's personal life and the validity of wikileaks' mission.

edit: your argument might have some weight if i was a news anchor. any news organization that is spending time reporting on the legal proceedings while ignoring the substance of the leaks is participating in the smear campaign. but this isn't a news network. it's a forum where people discuss current events, hip hop, and youtube videos. there's a whole thread dedicated to a line in a lil wayne track for christ's sake.

Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:01 pm

medicinemanHALFLING

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 1393
Location: Iowa City

crash wrote: sorry, i was assuming the people who read this forum were smart enough to to make the distinction between apparent creepiness of assange's personal life and the validity of wikileaks' mission.

edit: your argument might have some weight if i was a news anchor. any news organization that is spending time reporting on the legal proceedings while ignoring the substance of the leaks is participating in the smear campaign. but this isn't a news network. it's a forum where people discuss current events, hip hop, and youtube videos. there's a whole thread dedicated to a line in a lil wayne track for christ's sake.

Eh, I'm not really making a argument, just being a semantics prick. Just pick a better word than "discredit", as "discredit" their work is something that it clearly has done.

Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:33 pm

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6878
Location: Northern New Jersey

Discredit is a fine word for how he used it. This does nothing to discredit the work of Wikileaks, it only discredits the founder of the organization. You could make the argument that the two are the same, but I would disagree. Whether you're a rapist, or even just a bad person, doesn't mean that secret documents you leak are less valuable.

Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:00 pm

Sage FrancisSelf Fighteous

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21737

Yet, the narrative continues to be derailed. Wonderful job by the powers that be. I thought we were beyond that but it's clear that the masses are easy to distract.